August 07, 2009

The integrity commissioner has ruled on Brad Clark's conduct in so-called Tape-gate. Councillors have the report and know the findings. Too bad the public doesn't.

City hall marked the report as confidential when it produced agendas for next week's meeting. That means it can't be read by the public until after it's discussed by council behind closed doors. Most confidential reports are never made public unless council decides to release them.

I've taken issue with the way the city is handling the report. The Municipal Act, which gives cities the right to have an integrity commissioner, makes it clear the watchdog's reports "shall" be made available to the public. There's no clause saying they can be confidential until after a council meeting. Other cities make the reports public upfront on advance agendas.

A city spokesperson said staff are considering when the report should be made public. I hope for a update later today.

Do you think the report should be public now? Or is it reasonable to wait until after council has discussed it on Tuesday?

UPDATE: The city manager just informed council by email that "upon further legal review" the city has decided to release the report today. I'll link to it when the report is posted online.

July 30, 2009

So I'm back. Who knew before my water broke that Hamilton would have its own flood. This issue is just too hot for me not to blog.

Here's a quick recap of what happened at today's emergency meeting.

Three councillors (Bratina, Pearson and Ferguson) walked out of the meeting, preventing the approval of an aid program for flood victims that they thought would have been like writing a blank cheque. There was already lower than usual attendance because of summer holidays and illness. Most councillors present were ready to support a motion by Chad Collins for the city to pick up the tab for all uninsured flood damage. Staff had major concerns about the proposal, arguing it would invite insurance companies to reject claims and could cost the city unknown millions.

A motion to give staff a week to report back on the implications failed. Collins argued the city needs to act now. When a short recess was called to review the motion, the three councillors, who all expressed concerns with Collins' motion, left. Their departure caused the meeting to be canceled because of a lack of quorum. Bratina and Ferguson told me they left because they didn't want to be put in a position of voting against aid for flood victims when their concern was really approving the expanded program without knowing the consequences. Pearson said she left because of a "family emergency" and didn't know the others were leaving.

The mayor, who also spoke against Collins' motion, said he didn't advise the councillors to leave. But he noted the move will give staff more time to report back. "Sometimes politics is a game of chess."

It's a political move I haven't seen in my years covering city hall. Some were calling the councillors cowards for walking out on the democratic process and leaving flood victims without any aid. Others were hailing them as wise for saving the city from a proposal that could cost taxpayers millions.

City staff were proposing to give $1,000 grants to flood victims. People who have no insurance because of multiple floods would get more help. Staff wanted to report back on the amount, but based cost estimates on $5,000. The program would cost the city about $6 million based on 4,000 to 5,000 application.

But Collins wanted to up the program to cover all uninsured losses. His plan would cover the full cost of damages for residents who couldn't get insurance because of past floods and all costs above insurance policies for all homeowners. It would also cover flood damage not covered by insurance, like surface flooding. He thinks the program could cost $10 million to $20 million, but staff said they had no idea of the cost.

More details in tomorrow's paper.

What do you think of the councillors who left? What do you think of Collins' proposal?

July 10, 2009

After four years, my time as the Spectator's City Hall reporter will soon be coming to an end. In the fall I will be moving on to my next challenge...becoming a mom!

I debated the best time to end my blog and felt it was better to give it a firm good bye rather than let it fade away. Yesterday's dramatic council session marked the last meeting before the summer break. I will likely continue covering municipal affairs throughout the summer, but it's always a slow time for the blog. I know Hall Marks followers hate when there's a lack of updated content, so I figured I might as well say good bye now instead of waiting until September when I hand over the reigns.

Thank you to everyone who has read and contributed to Hall Marks. As of today, there have been more than 5,200 comments since the blog launched in February 2007. I've thoroughly enjoyed the experience and know I will miss it.

And who knows? If a major controversy breaks out before I go into labour, I just might be back ;)

July 09, 2009

Wow, what a meeting. The Winona retail development has been given the green light in a 9-7 vote 10-6 vote.

First an attempt to reconsider council's previous decision that the land should be commercial, not employment failed.

Then the head of planning Tim McCabe declared staff, who originally opposed converting the land, said they have "come around" and now think the proposal is "good planning."

Councillor Scott Duvall, who supported the proposal earlier this week, declared he had new concerns and was changing his vote. That set the ground for another tie losing vote.

But then Councillor Terry Whitehead and Mayor Fred Eisenberger switched their votes in favour. Eisenberger argued that if council wouldn't agree to change the zoning back to employment, it was only setting up the city for a losing OMB battle. Lots of shocked faces in the room throughout the debate.

"You should have stayed on vacation," Councillor Sam Merulla called to the mayor when he announced he was going to vote in favour.

It's been a week of surprise appearances for the Mayor. He's here for council this morning, despite saying earlier this week that he would be away on vacation. My guess is he heard from councillors and advisers that his absence today wouldn't be wise.

You'll recall his vote earlier this week against the Winona development caused a losing split decision. If he missed today and the proposal passed by just one vote I'm sure he would hear about it.

July 08, 2009

I'm a big fan of proverbs. Problem is, of course, you can always find a saying to justify your position.

For example, there's the classic 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Then there's 'Good things come to those who wait."

Council will have to decide which proverb it prefers when it comes to the contentious proposal to build an $85 million shopping complex in Winona. Supporters argue the city can't afford to turn away a development that promises $1 million in annual taxes and 1,300 jobs. No one else is knocking on the door, they note.

But critics argue Hamilton would be wise to maintain the prime highway land for industrial or office employment, instead of letting it be used for retail. The city is short on serviced employment land, so why give it away for a Wal-Mart with low paying jobs, they argue.

Hanging over the debate is the ever worsening tax situation. Residential taxpayers pick up 77 per cent of the city's budget. In 1994, it was only 61 per cent. Going back farther, the old city was almost evenly split. There's clearly a need to attract investment to lift the tax burden. But what type of investment should the city welcome?

It's a tough issue and one I expect will generate spirited debate from council.

July 07, 2009

The city is still hunting for a permanent Integrity Commissioner. Previously councillors wanted to hire a retired judge. That didn't really pan out. As the mayor says, the city wasn't exactly flooded with applications and the selection committee didn't find a suitable candidate.

So now the accountability and transparency committee has decided to open the doors.

Here's some of the suggested qualifications:- member of the Law Society of Upper Canada- broad knowledge and experience respecting current municipal law, municipal conflict of interest matters and other administrative law- proven impartiality and neutrality, such as that of a judge- able to provide services on a part-time basis- no other dealing or employment with the city- no involvement in political campaigning or endorsements ongoing or in the last municipal election

July 06, 2009

Bit of drama at planning this morning. The contentious Winona commercial development, including a Wal-Mart, was back for debate. There was a new motion to allow the proposal to go ahead with some holding provisions and new agreements about a transit hub and storm water management plan.

I think most folks expected it would pass with some opposition. But the dynamic changed when Mayor Fred Eisenberger decided to attend. (The mayor doesn't come to most committee meetings, but can vote at any meeting.) He voiced his opposition to the proposal, saying he needed to be consistent with his position a year ago when he argued the land should be used for employment, not commercial.

So it came to the vote and I was watching councillors Scott Duvall and Robert Pasuta to see where they would land. Duvall supported the proposal, but Pasuta didn't. That meant a surprise losing tie vote because of the mayor's presence.

Now it will be up to council on Thursday. Should be interesting to see how the other councillors (Merulla, Collins, Morelli, Jackson, Powers, McCarthy) will vote. Could be a close one.

Of course, it's likely the matter is going to the OMB no matter what council decides.

Insiders will know the people involved in this application make it more fascinating to watch. The developer Penady is represented by Mario Joanette, former chief of staff to Mayor Larry Di Ianni. And on the other side one of the opponents to the project is Ken Audziss, Eisenberger's former chief of staff, who helped defeat Di Ianni in the last election.

Update: The mayor caused another losing tie vote later in yesterday's meeting on a traffic light issue. He suggested Lloyd Ferguson was being "goofy" for arguing for the light after achieving a compromise on the density of the contentious Ancaster development. Ferguson was furious at the mayor's statement, saying the only thing that's goofy is not following through on what you said you would do. (Council previously approved the traffic light as part of an old application that's now off the table). After causing all that drama, Eisenberger now won't be at Thursday's council meeting because he's on vacation. That should make the final votes even more interesting to watch.

July 05, 2009

As a reporter who had to go to way too many cheque presentations in recent weeks, I loved this story.

Apparently Orillia's mayor didn't know he was supposed to show up at a presser to accept the city's infrastructure money or give thanks on Friday. LOL

For the record I should add a lot of money came down from the federal and provincial governments to Hamilton this week. And there was a separate press conference for each announcement...I sense the government pr folks know the slow news season is starting.

July 02, 2009

After five years in this city, I've come to realize Hamiltonians either love or hate this city's one way streets. For some they are a source of pride, i.e. "I can get from one end of the city to the other in less than five minutes." Haters cite the same reason for their dislike of the roads, which they feel are more like freeways that discourage people from enjoying the downtown and endanger pedestrians.

Given the polar views, I have no doubt the city's proposal to convert King Street and maybe Main to two-way traffic to make way for rapid transit will be controversial. The city is collecting public feedback on their proposals right now. Here's a link to fill out their survey.

Here's one of the scenarios the city is suggesting.

I'm also writing a story about the proposed conversions, so let me know what you think.

Nicole Macintyre

Nicole MacIntyre is the queen of kings. A married mother of two boys, including the world's former worst sleeper, she's also a reporter and parenting columnist at the Hamilton Spectator. A devotee of the 'whatever works' approach to child-rearing, Nicole has learned to never say "I'll never" when it comes to parenting.